Science is Boring

Science is Boring.

How dare I say such a thing...I know, it’s insidious, but I cannot deny it any longer.

All the time, “Science tells us this” and “Science tells us that”—we hear this often enough. It needs to be said. This “science” you always speak of, this strange phenomenon now on the lips of everyone these days, is entirely tedious. Even the way they use the word “science”, almost like it was some divine wind of knowledge destined to sprinkle about truth, is difficult to swallow. No, Science isn’t such magical forces. The only properties of Science with a capital S is scientists and a pile of literature on certain subjects. This supposed objective force consists of human beings of a particularly subjective sort appointing themselves as recorders of facts from which to compile a model of everything, which is an interesting proposition, but an entirely uninteresting task. The objective reality of science, according to the piles and piles of statistics, observations and math, has a degree of useful application, and in turn deserves that respect; but because it is piles and piles of statistics, observations and math, it is extremely boring, and even moreso when it is presented as a world-view.

Physics sits atop a pyramid representing the apex above the the rest of the natural, social, and applied sciences. In a twist of irony, and despite the repellent that is mathematics and statistics, physics has become a sort of metaphysics for so many religious types. Even behind a veil of irreligion, Scientific Certainty has become the dogma of those who do not wish to take a look for themselves. Ask one of these good people for their own ideas on something, they will throw a physics paper in front of your eyes, or will go mountaineering through mountains and valleys of statistics, analytics and numbers in search of their truths, like one might search for parables among dusty old books. As long as it has some mystical Scientific approval, or is presented as Science, it goes completely unquestioned. And what comes out their mouths when they finally speak their truths are numbers and equations. “This is truth” they will tell you. “This is law”. Their truths are true as long as someone with a PhD behind their name says so—scientists no longer scientists, but priests if I’m not being to blasphemous here. It goes without saying then that people who hold Science as a world-view are on the slightly boring side.


How is it boring?

Those great models of the solar system that used to be in the classrooms and astronomy exhibits were always fun to look at. They presented an interesting view of the solar system—seeing the tiny third rock among the other planets makes one feel quite small and insignificant. But, philosophically, it is an interesting view of the solar system because it is captured from no particular viewpoint in the universe, and from no particular pair of eyes. It is interesting because it presents a point of view as seen from no point of view, or if I may use the term in this instance, seeing it objectively, without a human eye around for lightyears to see it. It isn’t even a memory or a dream that someone once had. How is a worldview as seen by no one in the least bit interesting?

Science cannot be a world-view because there is no world view; it is sightless, “nothing to see here”, and there is no way to present it as such. What occurs is human beings diligently breaking things, eviscerating things, and exploding things to see what of the pieces we can use. It’s about mapping things, calculating things and gathering it all of it into a body of scientific facts, from which we can apply towards our base needs and comforts. Using an instrumentalist’s outlook, science is a tool, capable of being used for household and day-to-day uses, or for building monstrosities of technology, finding other ways to escape our own nature; but as can be seen, it is entirely incapable of defining the one who wields it.

"But progress!" they tell me. "Science is progress! Look at all the great toys we have!" It is quite clear that Protagoras was right: Man is the measure of all things. Consequently, progress is man’s progress. Objective data leads to subjective fruits. But since we’re taking the viewpoints of no one in particular, let’s imagine what progress means to a dolphin in a Sea-world, or a tree beside an eight-lane freeway, or a cow in a slaughterhouse. What does science tell us about them—and I'm not interested in their composition and biology, which implies I have to first kill them in order to know them. What does scientific data say about their lives as we probe them and use them as we see fit? I wonder how they view science and technology. It remains to be seen if man’s progress is beneficial to anything else in the universe, but at least when the end comes we can enjoy the fruits of our scientific labour, and perhaps find an air-conditioned room with a decent view. Or maybe though less likely, perhaps those who promote Science can at least be a little more humble about it.

Science is boring and perhaps paradoxical because it attempts to present an objective view of the universe as seen by no one, and by its nature, presents itself not as answers to questions, but as numbers and equations and data, and refuses any one interpretation over the other. No one who takes a Science world-view ever seems to read the data themselves. Scientific papers are really boring. What the plebeians usually find exciting about science is the religious enthusiasm involve in hearing different interpretations of the data, and the scientist always thinks she has reached some great answer, which she no doubt subjectively supplies. Or for once, go look at the actual data yourself, and witness the true science at work, the useful science—predictable, homogenous, and mediocre—numbers, facts, pie charts and so-on, destined to technological advances, and ultimately, new sciences.


The Poet vs. The Mathematician

Perhaps I am jaded. I had the pleasure of reading Goethe’s Theory of Colors and Newton’s Opticks back to back. I would witness the poet’s version of light and color a thousand times more before I ever decided to read the mathematician’s again. I prefer the light and color as seen by the poet’s eye rather than expressed by math. I prefer the color of one who has witnessed color everywhere, rather than while confined in a dark room, through which to let through only pinholes of light. On top of that, it was written delightfully and was not only a pleasure to pour through the observations but to imagine them at the same time, whereas I fell asleep during the Opticks and remember very little. Perhaps I too fell victim to Goethe’s enthusiasm and interpretation of his experiments, but only because it painted a more beautiful picture of what he was studying.

Darkness is the absence of light, physics tells me. Such an insipid view of something that we remain within for most of our lives. It is just as likely that light is the absence of darkness. An objective view can be quite meaningless to someone in a dark place. But when the lights go out we’ll finally know the truth: only for a moment is there light, the absence of darkness, and we are only lucky that for a short time we have eyes—human eyes—to see the light with.


Thank you for reading,

Most of it is!

Remember Comet Ison? Shocker! Or why are all the birds and wildlife leaving Yellowstone? And here we claim we have the Best Minds working on it, or so they say. Goes with science!

Who cares if one can break down something so small it claims it's the God P! I see no point in wasting that money to find this and other ideas out there that really Help Anyone.

One would think a Brain was sitting there going WTF! Why aren't we fixing the things we broke in the first place? Who came up with this meanless crap to begin with! Nope!

My penny's worth anyways!

Peace

Zowie ,Wow ...Nice post and a pleasure to read .Much like kids laughing and birds singing .I know I know they can be analyzed to death but wont put a grin on your face if you are a Stephen Hawkins type .science is boring ....peace

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Not all branches of science are rooted in math, and can be quite interesting actually-- so maybe it's mathematics that you think is boring?
Or just physics?

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


You can't possibly understand oxidative phosphorylation and still think that science is boring. Knowing that I can't possibly get behind your OP. I do, on the other hand, enjoy reading your stuff, so thanks.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

Hallelujah, you're in the right place to find science 'boring!' Science is conceivably grateful that an ATSer has limited their range of pejoratives to the innocuous 'boring.' No doubt it usually winces in resentment at the descriptive use of such adjectives as ignorant, arrogant and deceitful. Here it is being called boring and that holds some blushing optimism that it can change and be a better lover in the future, a more romantic partner to humanity's needs?

I would witness the poet’s version of light and color a thousand times more before I ever decided to read the mathematician’s again. I prefer the light and color as seen by the poet’s eye rather than expressed by math.

It most assuredly is a more welcoming description of light's finer aspects. Nevertheless, a poet's words won't provide the colourful perspectives of Hubble's cyclopian eye. Science has provided the medium by which we can all share in the wonders of the creative mind; at least to an extent that surpasses the reach of word-of-mouth from the poet's own sphere of society.

Without science, 'Les Mis' would not be expressing his eloquent and thoughtful contentions to so wide an audience.

The subtlety and elegance of science is such that it goes so unnoticed by a writer writing that that writer could find it easy to forget that, lacking any mathematical rigour of their own, they will always be borrowing it from those that do.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Science is all that separated/separates us from the animals.

reply to post by ImaFungi

No.
There are things like self awareness, language, mathematics and writing. These all came along before science.

Science is definitely boring...



Boring into what?

But anything is interesting if you want it to be, including science. Did Einstein or Tesla sit around and believe they had to follow the ways of others in their fields? Nope, they were nuts and decided to examine the evidence and try to find alternative solutions to things.

Remember, most great scientists were not normal, they were a little eccentric. It's more fun being eccentric instead of bored

Science is boring when science claims to know something just because they have collected a mountain of data on it.

Science is boring when it gyrates to fit current observation into past conclusions.

Science is boring when mathematical corrections take on quantum proportions.

Science is boring when it has to be politically correct.

Science is boring when it is censored.

Science is boring when it refuses to relate to life.

Science is boring when it indulges primal urges i.e. blowing s**t up just to see what will happen.

Science is boring when it uses our environment as a laboratory.

Science is boring when it is funded by vested interests.

Beyond that - an elegant equation is poetry.

Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

No.
There are things like self awareness, language, mathematics and writing. These all came along before science.

Language and math and self awareness utilize the scientific method. Science existed before it was defined. Science is the process/means of discovering/achieving knowledge. Technology is the utilization/implementation of knowledge. Language and math are technology/tools.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Language and math and self awareness utilize the scientific method.

No they don't.

Science existed before it was defined. Science is the process/means of discovering/achieving knowledge.

Science is a particular process. That of verification of data in order to support a hypothesis. It didn't actually begin until Galileo came along. His experiments with falling objects were the first to actually fit the definition.

Phage
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

Language and math and self awareness utilize the scientific method.

No they don't.

Science existed before it was defined. Science is the process/means of discovering/achieving knowledge.

Science is a particular process. That of verification of data in order to support a hypothesis. It didn't actually begin until Galileo came along. His experiments with falling objects were the first to actually fit the definition.

edit on 4/13/2014 by Phage because: (no reason given)

Language and math exists because of science. Hypothesis, experiment, discovery, utilization. Also self awareness too, the reason self awareness came into existence more so then the self awareness of non human creatures, was do to curiosity, questioning, seeking understanding, observing causes and affects, and this same interactive process of the mind and body interacting with nature and discovering what is possible and what can be done is what built the brain to the stage it arrived at when it was able to achieve self awareness.

reply to post by ImaFungi

Language and math exists because of science.

No, you have that backwards.
Without language and math, science could not exist.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope

How dare I say such a thing...I know, it’s insidious, but I cannot deny it any longer.

Science is not your passion. You may look down your nose at it, but scientists have a passion for life, knowledge and this world of ours that is not so different from the passion of a poet

Sounds a little sour-grapish to me. Did a scientist kick sand in your face?

(Nice to see you're back and up to your old tricks - you relentlessly nonconforming malcontent)

:-)

Science is about details, what does it entail to build a car or computer from scratch?

luxordelphi

Science is boring when it indulges primal urges i.e. blowing s**t up just to see what will happen.

Said the man who's never been behind a Mark 19 and been told 'Let 'er rip, Tom!'

Speak for yourself, John. Nothing, NOTHING is more fun than blowing # up. Except maybe setting it on fire.